The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq fell by more than a quarter in 2005 from a year earlier, Pentagon records show. Military officials call that a sign that insurgent attacks have declined in the face of elections and stronger Iraqi security forces. The number of wounded dropped from 7,990 in 2004 to 5,939, according to the Defense Department. There hasn't been much change in the number of deaths, however. Pentagon figures show 844 U.S. troops were killed in the Iraq war during 2005, compared with 845 in 2004. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has announced plans to cut the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to about 130,000, down from about 160,000 for last month's elections. Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said he's optimistic that security in Iraq will continue to improve and more U.S. forces could leave. ... http://www.usatoday.com

Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 conclusion that the Vietnam War was unwinnable keenly influenced public opinion then, said Sunday he'd say the same thing today about Iraq."It's my belief that we should get out now," Cronkite said in a meeting with reporters.Now 89, the television journalist once known as "the most trusted man in America" has been off the "CBS Evening News" for nearly a quarter-century. He's still a CBS News employee, although he does little for them.Cronkite said one of his proudest moments came at the end of a 1968 documentary he made following a visit to Vietnam during the Tet offensive. Urged by his boss to briefly set aside his objectivity to give his view of the situation, Cronkite said the war was unwinnable and that the U.S. should exit.Then-President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told a White House aide after that, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."...http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/13634392.htm

As the toll of U.S. dead and wounded mounts in Iraq, some economists are arguing that the war's costs, broadly measured, far outweigh its benefits. Studies of previous wars focused on the huge outlays for military operations. That is still a big concern, along with the collateral impact on such things as oil prices, economic growth and interest on the debt run up to pay for the war. Now some economists have added in the dollar value of a life lost in combat, and that has fed antiwar sentiment. "The economics profession in general is paying more attention to the cost of lives cut short or curtailed by injury and illness," said David Gold, an economist at the New School in New York. "The whole tobacco issue has encouraged this research." The economics of war is a subject that goes back centuries. But in the cost-benefit analyses of past U.S. wars, a soldier killed or wounded in battle was typically thought of not as a cost but as a sacrifice to protect the country. ...http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/15/business/warcost.php?rss

Centre-left candidate Michelle Bachelet has become Chile's first woman president, taking 53.5% of the poll with almost all the votes counted. Her rival, conservative businessman Sebastian Pinera, has conceded defeat. Giving a victory speech to cheering suporters, Ms Bachelet said: "Who would have said, 10, 15 years ago, that a woman would be elected president?" Correspondents say Ms Bachelet's win consolidates a swing to the political left in Latin America. The election is the fourth since Chile returned to democracy in 1990 after 17 years of military rule. Outgoing President Ricardo Lagos hailed the election of Chile's first woman leader as a "historic triumph". Mr Pinera, who had 46.5% of the vote with 97.5% counted, was also quick to congratulate Ms Bachelet. He said he wanted to "pay homage to all those millions and millions of women who with much strength and tenacity have finally achieved the place and the situation they deserve in our society". ...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4613864.stm

Iran is heading for a dangerous showdown with the U.S. and European Union after defying their warnings and resuming uranium enrichment tests. The U.S. and Israel, both nuclear powers, accuse Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for electrical power. Tehran accuses the West of nuclear hypocrisy, citing the Bush Administration's recent pact to aid India's nuclear programs. Given that the U.S. and/or Israel may soon attack Iran, and the EU impose sanctions, it's unlikely Iran would risk so much unless it is racing to make nuclear weapons. Note: Iran has not violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel, India and Pakistan never even signed. UN monitors say it concealed some questionable activities, but didn't violate the treaty. Western experts believe Iran is 5-10 years away from being able to develop deliverable weapons. What motivates Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to challenge the West? ...http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2006/01/14/1394381.html

Iraq's electoral commission won't release final results from last month's election in coming days because the panel is waiting on international monitors to finish investigating fraud complaints, a senior Iraqi election official said Saturday. "It is impossible to have the final election results this week," Safwat Rashid, a senior member of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq told The Associated Press. He was referring to the Islamic week, which began Friday and ends on Thursday. A senior official with an international team assessing the results at the request of the IEIC said the group won't issue its own findings for at least another week....http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1505745